Survival of the selfish

The archbishop was right about climate change on the Today programme this morning (listen to it here). In all probability billions of people are going to die in the next few decades. Our poor, abused planet simply cannot take much more. As Jim Lovelock points out in his "Revenge of Gaia", she has a fever, and we are the bug that's causing it. The carrying capacity of the earth is possibly a billion or two; it's certainly far lower than the current plague of humans.

I know this. The science has been building up for years and is now clear. When sea levels rise further millions will drown, when the deserts grow bigger millions will starve, when the glaciers end their present flood of excess melt water vast cities will become uninhabitable almost overnight. Then what?

Britain looks set to be one of the few places on earth that might remain habitable for some time. If the Gulf stream switches off our climate will cool, offsetting the general warming. We may still have drinking water, be able to grow crops, and lose only a few of our finest cities to the floods. As an island nation we might be able to protect and rehouse our own flood refugees. But what about everyone else? The world will be awash with eco-refugees, desperate to get to anywhere with land and fresh water. What do we do?

This is a moral issue that the archbishop did not venture into. I think it is one we should think about long before we have to act, and our answer will depend on a moral choice. What do we wish to save - is it ourselves, is it humanity at large, is it planet earth, or is it civilisation? It is no good dodging the question, for the actions we have to take will be radically different according to which choice we make.

If we save our own nation by protecting our borders and doing our utmost to feed and protect our own citizens then we will have to watch the suffering of the billions dying elsewhere. If we make this choice we will have to be steadfast about it and there will doubtless be many Britons who will rebel against acting so selfishly. But we probably could survive.

If we take the unselfish route and try to save everyone the outcome is likely to be horrific conflict in the fight over resources, and continuing devastation of the planet until most, or all, of humanity is dead.

If we decide to put the planet first, then we ourselves are the pathogen. So we should let as many people die as possible, so that other species may live, and accept the destruction of civilisation and of everything we have achieved.

Finally, we might decide that civilisation itself is worth preserving. In that case we have to work out what to save and which people would be needed in a drastically reduced population - weighing the value of scientists and musicians against that of politicians, for example - a prospect that does not look at all easy from here.

Indeed none of these choices looks easy, but if we fail to make any decisions then I believe the most likely outcome is that we in the rich west will go on trying to salve our consciences by giving aid to the poorer parts of the world until we realise, far too late, that Gaia is going to chuck us all off whatever we do, and nothing can be saved at all.

Sign up for the Guardian Today

Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.